Below the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons flow upward through an intricate network of conduits and reservoirs. They start in thin layers of source rock and, from there, buoyantly rise to the surface. On their way up, the hydrocarbons collect in little rivulets, and create temporary pockets like rain filling a pond. Eventually most escape to the ocean. And, this is all happening now, not millions and millions of years ago, says Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University.

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says.

He's bringing this new view of an active hydrocarbon cycle to industry, hoping it will lead to larger oil and gas discoveries. By matching the chemical signatures of the oil and gas with geologic models for the structures below the seafloor, petroleum geologists could tap into reserves larger than the North Sea, says Cathles, who presented his findings at the meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans on March 27.

"A big part of the future of exploration is being able to effectively use chemical information," Cathles says. Working in an area with more oil by at least a factor of two than the North Sea, he says he hopes that his models will help companies better allocate their resources. But equally important, Cathles says, is that his work is shifting the way people think about natural hydrocarbon vent systems — from the past to the present.

The topology of petroleum occurrence is a further defeat for the argument ... of an exclusively organic or exclusively abiogenic origin for petroleum. If oil were either rising from primordial sources in the earth’s interior or created in “oil windows” by catagenesis, the more mobile fractions would escape from the depths and be found more abundantly near the surface and less mobile fractions, low gravity oils, would be present at depth. Exactly the opposite is the norm. Methane gas, the most mobile hydrocarbon, is more abundant with depth, worldwide; and tars, the least mobile, are most abundant at and near the surface.

Working backwards through the above points, we can say that:

1. Topologies of hydrocarbon occurrences indicate that methane effuses from the interior, not petroleum; that 2. Topologies of hydrocarbon occurrences indicate that low-gravity oil is not generated at depth in oil windows; that 3. Methane beneficiates fossiliferous shales and peat deposits, creating oil shales and coal. Oil shales and coal do not generate methane; methane generates oil shales and coal; that 4. Bacteria and archaea in the outer crust strip hydrogen from methane progressively through condensates, high gravity oil, and low gravity oil, to bitumens; that 5. Hydrides of silicon and carbon along with intermetals rise into crustal levels where dissociation and oxidation liberate the heat of endogeny and deposit rock-forming minerals, and metal deposits, leaving only methane and hydrogen to effuse into the atmosphere; that 6. Nonmetal hydrides escaping from the interior of the primordial earth created a reducing atmosphere that was changed over to oxygen-rich by the loss of hydrogen to space; and that 7. The discovery that hydrogen nuclei under pressure penetrate atomic shells of metals, transmuting the metals to intermetals, densifying them, and fluidizing them, creates an entirely new geological picture of the earth’s interior, of endogeny, and of the mode by which the crust was created.

The idea (I don't think this has yet been proven) that the world's oil fields are actually replenishing, is worth studying alongside the idea that the world's oil fields are depleting. I'm afraid the proof of the latter is overwhelming, whereas the proof of the former is negligable. The world's appetite for the black gold is currently so insatiable, that most of the known mega fields are in depletion: Cantarell, North Sea, Kuwait, and the debate rages about Saudi's Ghawar, particularly over statistics and various numerical interpretations. These fields are simply unable to produce as much as they did in their maximum capacity days, whether it be due to lack of investment in advanced technologies or lack of truth about initial estimates, whatever, they are simply not producing enough for the world's market.

I've been folllowing Peak Oil for a few years and I'm ready to entertain many different interpretations: it's an elite game, played the expense of the rest of us, it's a 'myth' created by (fill in the blank) it's a conspiracy theory etc. I would not like to see the EU fraternity swallow the 'oil fields are refilling from bellow' 'theory' purely because it also goes against the overwhelming data, just as I hope you do not ridicule the Global Warming theory (nb I did not say Anthropogenic Global Warming) simply because it has been shoved, arguably, 'unscientifically' down our throats. If you had been studying the numbers, reading the opinions, following the graphs of say, the past five years, you would accept the fact that the world is struggling right now to produce as much oil as the market demands. If the refilling from bellow theory is right, it really doesn't matter as it is not taking place quickly enough to save the world economic system from extreme and severe withdrawal symptoms as that economy is based ENTIRELY on an abundant and cheap flow of oil. I am very much against the doomerish view of a world filled with marauding zombie hordes caused by the sudden and complete melt down of the world economy because of a sudden and complete depletion of oil fields, but it is right in front of your face right now, that the ongoing depletion of previously reliable abundantly cheap fossil fuels is causing an economic crisis of proportions previously unseen, throughout the western World.

Indalo wrote:The idea (I don't think this has yet been proven) that the world's oil fields are actually replenishing, is worth studying alongside the idea that the world's oil fields are depleting. I'm afraid the proof of the latter is overwhelming, whereas the proof of the former is negligable. The world's appetite for the black gold is currently so insatiable, that most of the known mega fields are in depletion: Cantarell, North Sea, Kuwait, and the debate rages about Saudi's Ghawar, particularly over statistics and various numerical interpretations. These fields are simply unable to produce as much as they did in their maximum capacity days, whether it be due to lack of investment in advanced technologies or lack of truth about initial estimates, whatever, they are simply not producing enough for the world's market.

I've been folllowing Peak Oil for a few years and I'm ready to entertain many different interpretations: it's an elite game, played the expense of the rest of us, it's a 'myth' created by (fill in the blank) it's a conspiracy theory etc. I would not like to see the EU fraternity swallow the 'oil fields are refilling from bellow' 'theory' purely because it also goes against the overwhelming data, just as I hope you do not ridicule the Global Warming theory (nb I did not say Anthropogenic Global Warming) simply because it has been shoved, arguably, 'unscientifically' down our throats. If you had been studying the numbers, reading the opinions, following the graphs of say, the past five years, you would accept the fact that the world is struggling right now to produce as much oil as the market demands. If the refilling from bellow theory is right, it really doesn't matter as it is not taking place quickly enough to save the world economic system from extreme and severe withdrawal symptoms as that economy is based ENTIRELY on an abundant and cheap flow of oil. I am very much against the doomerish view of a world filled with marauding zombie hordes caused by the sudden and complete melt down of the world economy because of a sudden and complete depletion of oil fields, but it is right in front of your face right now, that the ongoing depletion of previously reliable abundantly cheap fossil fuels is causing an economic crisis of proportions previously unseen, throughout the western World.

Well, I am not to judge the information. ;P

However, the problem with oil is clear, it's production, refinement and is controlled by maybe two dozen people in the world. Control and power is the problem. With these individuals attempting to silence all alternatives we have caused some of the worst disasters in history and slowed down the progress of all mankind.

Indalo wrote:However, the problem with oil is clear, it's production, refinement and is controlled by maybe two dozen people in the world. Control and power is the problem. With these individuals attempting to silence all alternatives we have caused some of the worst disasters in history and slowed down the progress of all mankind.

Krakonis, that's absolutely true of course, and if you read a few 'alternative' versions of history it's easy to weave together a conspiracy which places these people at the head of a 'secret' cabal effectively pulling the political strings around the world. I personally think the Pentagon, which is now the world's largest consumer of crude oil (that's worth reading a few times) is actually in controll of U.S policy and by extension NATO and it's allies, it is in the process of effectively securing crude supplies for its invincible army. The impossible web of deceit which makes up the Pentagon, comprising 'private contractors', ex-politicians, CIA and the so-called US political class, adds up to one unmanageable beast of an organisation, with practically no oversight. (I'm not American, just observing from Old Europe.)

I'd just like to quote from a comentator who is not a member of the Peak Oil camp and seems to be sensible and balanced in his reporting, regarding the current situation in supplies, which I hope will go some way to helping other readers here perceive the complexity of the Peak Oil issue i.e it's not just speculation, OPEC, Big Oil, or the fact that they haven't started drilling in Alaska yet, and to begin touting the 'it will refill from bellow' theory as a saviour or counter-Peak Oil argument is naive. Commenting on recent studies trying to determine the role speculation has in driving up world oil prices, Andrew Leonard of Salon's How The World Works ends with this:

Another 20 million barrels of oil a day by 2015? That would be truly remarkable, requiring huge expansions of oil sands and oil shale resources, vastly increased production out of Saudi Arabia, and the discovery of replacements for the sharply declining production in Mexico, Russia and the North Sea. And in the unlikely event that such an expansion did come to pass, as testimony two weeks ago by CERA's chairman Daniel Yergin observed, it's not going to be cheap. Not only are the newer, "unconventional" sources of oil inherently more expensive to develop, but the oil industry is facing severe shortages of manpower and equipment. Ramping up current supply by 25 percent in just ten years will cost a pretty penny.

It is toxic... and we need to find cleaner, more sustainable, and decentralized forms of energy...

Petroleum is the old paradigm... holding onto it will just limit us.

Indeed. But simply trying to replace it with something else will not solve our problems either. The whole economic/social system you and I have grown up with is based exclusively on the assumption that there will always be an abundant supply of cheap energy. What has to change drastically is the economic model which has given us everything we know today; boom and bust, sustained growth, cheap or affordable medicine, cheap and abundant food transported all around the world etc. the truth is that we are running out of oil at exactly the same time as our underlying economic and political systems are decaying. We simply don't have time to just 'let go' of our dependency on oil, we don't have time to decentralize on such a scale as would be necessary to avoid the extreme consequences of a world unnable to sustain a decaying model. The basic lack of information to the wider public about the consequences of increased decline rates in the world's largest fields, (a massive 14% for Mexico's Cantarell field last year alone) means nobody is aware of the seriousness of the Peak Oil problem. We are just expecting normal decline rates of 3-4% per year, which would mean the world has to find approximately 3.87 million extra barrels a day, just to keep standing still, not a measly 200,000 or 300,000 which the Saudi's magnanimously promise ocassionally. In fact the decline rates are proving to be more like 4-5% a year world wide, which means that between 2005 and 20015 we would have to find the equivalent of 10 Ghawar fields (the Saudi super giant field) to keep up with present levels of consumption. So far, it has not been proven that any depleting fields are actually refilling, least of all at the huge quantities of crude needed to maintain our socio-cultural level. Sure, new discoveries are being made, however, none of them make much of a dent in the world's insatiable thirst for 85-86 Million barrels A DAY with which we are currently driving headlong over a cliff.

Peddling stories of refilling oil wells, or other similar pseudo answers to this problem does everybody a huge disservice.

Let's re-steer this thread in the direction of a finding a direct and cogent EU Planetary Science connection with the original post or it looks to be heading south to the NIAMI forum.

Umm.... we are surounded by free electricity, trick is how do we use it down here on Earth?

I've been PEAK OIL aware for nearly 5 years now and lately I'm scared

I have but two names for were we went wrong EDISON T.E & MORGAN J.P

Where would we be now if TESLA and WESTINGHOUSE got to run the show?

Not staring at the sky while running towards the cliff

PS peak oil is what turned me onto the EU theory. In my hunt for our alternatives(Solar wind tidal etc etc), Tesla's vision and knowledge and the understanding that the Universe is electric have brought to me a greater understanding of how the "machine" works.

Methane is continuously "bubbling up" from inside the earth. Gold's hypothesis is that bacteria deep down convert methane into more complex organics, eventually leading to crude oil. This seems very much within the realm of possibility, if a tad unlikely.

Well, what about ELECTRICITY? Didn't the MIller-Urey experiment show that current through an organic soup can create a more complex "soup"? Do you think that maybe a continuous voltage difference (with or without current) over time applied to methane (along with temperature and pressure) might be part of what creates "crude oil"?

I don't remember reading much about any voltage difference between different depths of the Earth (similar to the voltage difference in the atmosphere), although electricity in the Earth is mentioned quite a bit, assiciated with earthquakes, etc. Any of you EU experts have any thoughts on this?

bdw000 wrote:Gold's hypothesis is that bacteria deep down convert methane into more complex organics, eventually leading to crude oil. This seems very much within the realm of possibility, if a tad unlikely.

It seems to me that recently I heard a report on the radio that said scientists had discovered an insect that, when feed on a particular diet, deficates petroleum. (Or maybe it was on another thread of this very forum.)

As I recall, these scientists had supposedly started a company and were trying to develop the technology. Assuming this is fact, it would seem to lend additional credibility to Gold's hypothesis--or something like it.

The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced on-line issue of Nature Geoscience.

The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced on-line issue of Nature Geoscience.

The original hypothesis that oil was derived from organisms was postulated in 1757. This hypothesis was based on the crudest of observations.

Shortly after 1800, other scientists postulated that "rock oil", for that is what it was originally called, was derived from abiotic chemical processes and the debate has been going forward ever since, although admittedly the "fossil" theory got the upper hand, but now with oil found off the coast of Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, and the West African coast that is below the salt barrier, sometimes as deep as 25,000 feet below the sea floor and in water over 5,000 feet deep, at pressures and temperatures that violate all tenents of the so-called "oil window" corollary of how oil would form in the "fossil" theory, it's becoming increasingly apparent that oil is abiotic.

A majority of the giant and super giant oil fields are located above deep faults in the Earth, commonly called "tectonic faults" (see link below):

And this schematic (okay, artist's rendering) while envisioning an oil seep at the shore's edge, is also known to happen in deep waters, too.

" -- Marine mud volcanoes, such as the Campeche Knolls (shale/salt diapirs), in the Gulf of Mexico, located on the flank of a previous spreading system in 9,000 feet of water (deep fault that is no longer active).

-- Large mud volcanoes on the Mid Mediterranean Ridge, located on a deep fault system.

-- Mud volcanoes on and off Trinidad, located on a transform plate boundary (deep fault)."

And these mud volcanoes produce in part light hydrocarbons:

"The Campeche volcanoes also produce light hydrocarbons, which are detectable on the sea-surface with satellite technology (MacDonald et al., 2004)."

Also asphalt volcanoes exist in the deepest regions of the Gulf of Mexico (seel link below):

"Asphalt volcanoes and lava-like flows of solidified asphalt on the seafloor were first discovered and described by MacDonald et al. The flows covered more than one square kilometer of a dissected salt dome at abyssal depths (˜3000 m) in the southern Gulf of Mexico. “Chapopote” (93°26'W, 21°54'N) was one of two asphalt volcanoes they discovered."

Asphalt volcanoes found in over 9000 feet of water in the abyssal depths of the Gulf of Mexico -- not a promising place for organic detritus I'm afraid.

Look at how a conventional geologist describes the "asphalt volcanoes" in the Gulf of Mexico (see link below):

It's clear from the geologist's commentary that he finds this extraordinary, but then goes on to allude to the possibility that it's more common than currently understood.

Contrary to the current assumption that hydrocarbons and volcanic activity is mutually exclusive, it turns out that volcanic activity and hydrocarbons are closely linked.

And here is an additional abstract that gives more detail of abitoic oil formation and even explains the reason for the difference for high sulphur "sour" oil and low sulphur "sweet" oil (see link below):

"We suggest a third possibility--the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids. These fluids are proposed to be the product of serpentinization of carbon-rich peridotites under hydrogen-rich, reduced conditions."

And this is just a small amount of the total body of scientific literature supporting abiotic oil.

Last edited by Anaconda on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:35 am, edited 4 times in total.